I appreciated the discourse, but I didn't think it was terribly relevant to what is in front of us, which is simply an analysis so that Rodger's not stuck saying this is only going to cost $30 million, and the minister is saying no, it costs $65 million, but effectively members will know in front of the House, while they're deciding whether this is within their priorities, whether this is an important thing to do, and that this is a number and there is a consensus around that number.
J'ai bien apprécié le discours, mais je n'ai pas trouvé cela tellement pertinent par rapport à l'affaire qui nous occupe, qui est simplement une analyse pour que Rodger ne soit pas pris à dire que son projet coûtera seulement 30 millions de dollars alors que le ministre lui dit non, ça va coûter 65 millions de dollars.